THE INCREDIBLE HISTORY OF GOD’S TRUE CHURCH – Chapter Six (part three – the end)

By Ivor C. Fletcher

 THE GREAT CONSPIRACY

A series of epistles and other writings appeared during the second century which supported the introduction of new doctrines. Many, if not most, of these works could be classed as spurious, in the sense that the individuals named as the writers of these documents were not the true authors, who had probably been dead for several decades when these works were written.

These writings do, however, reflect, with some degree of accuracy, the changes which were taking place at Rome during the second century A.D.

The observance of Sunday as a day of worship appears to have started at Rome around A.D. 120. The so-called “Epistle of Barnabas” which was written about this time mentions that “we observe the eighth day with gladness” (chap. 13 v. 10).

This work contains a strong anti-Jewish bias and the writer goes to great length to supposedly “prove” that the health laws of the Bible, primarily those relating to clean and unclean meats, had been written as an allegory and as such did not apply to Christians. He concludes by stating: “Wherefore it is not the command of God that they should not eat these things…” (Chapter 10).

The “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” is another attempt to justify Sunday observance. “Wherefore if they who were brought up in these ancient laws came nevertheless to the newness of hope; no longer observing Sabbaths but keeping the Lord’s Day… (Chap. 9).

By A.D. 200 the Roman church, far from calling the Sabbath “a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable” (Isa. 58:13) had made this a day of fasting.

“The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business was avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day.”¹⁸

The antagonism of the church of Rome was not confined to the weekly Sabbath but was extended to include the annual Sabbaths which pictured God’s plan of salvation for mankind.

About A.D. 140 a Jew named Trypho challenged Justin

Martyr, a leader in the Roman church, to explain why the Christians were not observing “festivals or Sabbaths.” Justin replied that “the new law requires you to keep a perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances.”¹⁹

It is also noted in the above work that “Justin never discriminated between the Sabbath of the Lord and the annual sabbaths…” Justin mentions the attitude of the Roman Christians to those of the True Church of God who continued to observe the Sabbath. They “do not venture to have any intercourse with, or to extend hospitality to, such persons; but I do not agree with them.”

By the middle of the second century the few who continued to obey God, and as such constituted the True Church (Rev. 12:17) were being ejected from any fellowship with the professing Christian Church, which had substituted its own traditions in place of obedience to God.

The time predicted by Christ when “They shall put you (the true Christians) out of the synagogues” (John 16:2) had arrived.

Not only did the Roman church regard the Sabbath as a fast day but, in time, even the feast of unleavened bread began to be regarded in the same light.

The Roman congregation was instructed to “keep your nights of watching in the middle of the days of unleavened bread. And when the Jews are feasting, do you fast and wail over them, because on the day of their feast they crucified Christ… Do you therefore fast on the days of the Passover…”²⁰

The changes being introduced by the Roman church did not take place without opposition. In Asia Minor, where several churches had been raised up by the apostles, Christians continued to observe the festivals which had been handed down to them by the apostles and, their immediate followers, such as Polycarp.

Church members continued these festivals even when visiting Rome, which only served to emphasize the growing differences between the church of Rome and churches from other areas.

The Roman church needed something more than the tradition of its own bishops upon which to place the seal of authority upon its changing doctrines.

A letter was circulated at Rome shortly after Polycarp’s visit of A.D. 154. The letter, probably a forgery, purported to have come from the Roman bishop Pius, who had died shortly before this time, in which his brother Hermas is said to have received instructions from an angel that the Passover should be observed on a Sunday. This, it seems, gave fresh impetus to the growing Easter Sunday tradition.

About A.D. 160 Tatian, a disciple of Justin Martyr, produced the “Diatessaron” in which it was said (by Dionysius of Corinth) that he “selected from the gospels and patched together and constructed a gospel which is called Diatessaron.” This work appeared to produce evidence in the form of direct quotations from the gospels to support the “Good Friday” tradition.

An honest examination of the real gospels, however, produces no such “evidence.” Few in Rome, it seems, bothered to check the source of Tatian’s statements.

At about this point in history a discovery was made at Rome which was to have tremendous significance for the local church.

Workmen, digging the foundations for a new building on Vatican Hill around A.D. 160-170, uncovered something which inspired the Roman bishop Anicetas to erect a shrine on the site of the discovery which was dedicated to the apostle Peter.

Extensive excavations which started in 1939 and continued for several years beneath the high altar of St. Peter’s have established beyond reasonable doubt that this shrine to Peter, also known as “the Andicula,” was erected during the third quarter of the second century AD.

The unknown “something” which the workmen uncovered during the second century could well have been some of the bodily remains of one, or more, of the victims of the Neronian persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64.

The site of the shrine was located only a short distance from Nero’s Circus, where the Christians suffered martyrdom. A second century will of one Gaius Popilius Horacia stipulated that he was to be buried “on the Vatican Hill near the Circus.”

Bishop Lightfoot described in lurid detail the ghastly events of that time.

“The refined cruelty of the tortures — the impalements and the pitchy tunics, the living torches making night hideous with the lurid flames and piercing cries, the human victims clad in the skins of wild beasts and hunted in the arena, while the populace gloated over these revels and the emperor indulged his mad orgies—those were scenes which no lapse of time could efface. Above all… the climax of horrors… were the outrages, far worse than death itself, inflicted on weak women and innocent girls.”²¹

Although there is no way of knowing for certain whether or not the workmen really did uncover the remains of Peter’s body, or indeed of any body, the fact is clearly established that Peter was venerated at this shrine from about A.D. 160 onwards.

Dionysius of Corinth was the first to mention that both Peter and Paul had died at Rome (A.D. 170).

Eusebius records the statement of the Roman priest Gaius, made about A.D. 200, that: “I can show you the trophies of the Apostles. For if you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, there you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.”²²

From the time of Constantine onwards Catholic churches erected on this site were built in such a manner as to incorporate the shrine within the finished building.

An interesting reference in the “Liber Pontificalis” would seem, on the face of it, to place the construction of the shrine some eighty years earlier than the evidence of archaeology would indicate.

It was said that Anacletus, a shadowy figure about whom almost nothing is known, “built and set in order a memorial… shrine to the blessed Peter, where the bishops might be buried.” This event is dated to about A.D. 80.

So far as is known, only one shrine to Peter existed at Rome during the first few centuries of the Christian era, and intensive recent investigations have dated this to about A.D. 160. The most probable solution to this problem is that the sixth century scribe who compiled this work, probably from earlier sources, almost certainly confused the two names of Anacletus and Anicetus (the Bishop of Rome in A.D, 160).

A bizarre twist to this story is that Anacletus did indeed dedicate a shrine to the first bishop of Rome in A.D. 80 — but that man was NOT Peter. The shrine of memoria of Anacletus was dedicated to the genuine first bishop of Rome. The man’s name was LINUS. He was ordained by the apostle Paul (not Peter) as the first elder or bishop of the Church of God at Rome.

One of Paul’s functions as an apostle was to ordain elders, or bishops in the towns and cities where churches had been established. Sometimes an assistant was delegated to handle this task (Titus 1:5). What very few have realized is that Paul also performed this task at Rome.

Several early writers mention this ordination and link the individual concerned with the Linus mentioned in II Tim. 4:21. Jerome gives the date of this event as A.D. 68, probably no more than a few months or weeks before Paul’s martyrdom.

Of all the local bishops ordained by Paul, the bishop of Rome was not the first but the last to be ordained. This ordination could well have been his final official duty prior to his death.

Linus died, possibly martyred, in A.D. 80. His tomb has been discovered in the Roman catacombs. The amazing facts relating to this discovery are as follows: “In the Catacomb of St. Priscilla is a memorial chapel known as the Memoria of Anacletus. This, we are told, was built by Anacletus after the death of Linus. Dr. Spence-Jones gives an interesting account of the discovery of the Memoria and what it contained. It was evidently built in honour of Linus and as a fitting resting place for this first Bishop of Rome, who suffered martyrdom. Part of the Vatican was built over this catacomb, the oldest in Rome.

“No doubt it has been explored thoroughly in the hope of finding St. Peter’s tomb, but none has been discovered with any inscription pointing to Peter. In the Memorial of Anacletus, a number of plain stone coffins were found grouped around the floor. Only one bore an inscription and it was the simple word LINUS. This was in the centre of the floor and was clearly the one for which the chapel was built.”²³

Iranaeus, who was born only forty years after the death of Linus, confirmed his position in the darly church.

“The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in his Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus and after him, in third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.”²⁴

One can only wonder why these important facts have remained hidden for so long.

Very little is known of the movements of Peter apart from the few brief references to him given in the New Testament. These speak of him working at Jerusalem, Joppa, Caesarea, Samaria and Antioch.

His task was to preach to the Jews, not the gentile Romans (Gal. 2:7-8). Paul, not Peter, was sent to establish the church at Rome (Rom. 15:16).

At the end of his epistle to the Romans, Paul lists a considerable number of his “fellow labourers in Christ,” but makes no mention of Peter. No doubt he would have been the first on the list had he been the “bishop of Rome” at the time.

Some time later, probably in A.D. 59, when Paul arrived in Italy on the way to Rome he was met by some Christian brethren, but Peter was not among them (Acts 28:15).

At the time that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, while recognizing the existence of a Christian congregation, he speaks throughout as though this were practically a virgin soil in which he was called to sow the seed of the Gospel.” “The first Apostle visited Rome about AD. 60.²⁵

None of the “Prison Epistles” written by Paul about this time make any mention of Peter.

William Cave mentions Peter working in Northern Asia Minor, along with his brother Andrew.

“He [Andrew] next came to Sinope, a city situated upon the same sea (Black Sea) where he met with his brother Peter with whom he stayed a considerable time.”²⁶

As Peter’s own first epistle, written about A.D. 65, is addressed to Christians in this area, the fact that he laboured for a time along this Black Sea coast is highly probable.

The final years of Peter’s life are shrouded in mystery, and scholars have rightly treated statements from early writers relating to this period with considerable caution.

Cardinal Baronius, the Vatican Librarian, quotes the tenth century writer Simon Metaphrastes, who mentioned that “Peter spent some days in Britain, and enlightened many by the word of grace; and having established churches and elected Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, came again to Rome in the twelfth year of Nero…” “This ancient account is highly probable.”²⁷

Although some point out that “Metaphrastes is an author of no credit” (Fuller’s Church History of Britain, p. 9), a tradition relating to Peter’s visit to Britain seems to have started at a very early date.

Gildas, in the sixth century, refers to Britain as “St. Peter’s Chair.” A church building, dedicated to Peter, is said to have been erected in London as earty as A.D. 179 (St. Peter’s of Cornhill).

Although the tradition which relates to Westminster Abbey being built on the spot where Peter once slept and had a vision seems too good to be true, and could well have been a fabrication of the Dark Ages, the fact that a church dedicated to Peter occupied the site of the Abbey from ancient times is well established. According to Lactantius, “St. Peter came not to Rome till the reign of Nero, and not long before his martyrdom.”

The twelfth year of Nero’s reign is given by several early writers as the date that Peter first arrived at Rome. As this date, A.D. 66, is the year before tradition asserts that he was martyred at Rome, there is a strong possibility that the traditions are based on a measure of historical fact.

Paul, in his final epistle, the second to Timothy, makes no mention of Peter and makes it clear that “only Luke is with me” (II Tim. 4:1 1). Peter could well have been dead when this was written.

Dionysius, in the second century, mentioned that both Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in Italy. His remarks are recorded by Eusebius.

A little later, about A.D. 200, Tertullian relates that Peter was crucified at Rome, and Origen records that he was crucified upside-down.

As the Apostle to “the circumcision,” Peter could well have had an interest in the Jewish community that resided in Rome at that time (Acts 28:17).

Although Peter may well have briefly visited Rome towards the end of his life, and may even have died there, this possibility in no way proves that he was the first bishop of Rome in the traditional sense of the term.

Peter was as much a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” as was Paul, and in no way would have sanctioned or authorized the doctrinal changes that the Roman church began to introduce from the second century onwards.

Christ, not Peter, was the Head of the Church (Eph. 5:23) and He was the one who should be followed (I Pet. 2:21).

Peter, who was a married man, not a celibate priest, kept both the weekly and annual Sabbaths, and would, no doubt, had he lived, have strongly resisted any moves to change or abolish the observance of these days. Peter cannot in any way be used as an authority by those who seek to move away from “the faith once delivered to the saints.”

The period immediately following the deaths of Peter and Paul have, with good reason, been called “The Age of Shadows” and “The Lost Century.” For some fifty years, up to the earliest writings of the church fathers around A.D. 120, church history is almost a total blank.

Several historians have made the point that the church which we read of during the second century was in many vital respects quite different from the church which had been established by Christ and the Apostles.

By the closing years of that century, Christians who faithfully continued in the teachings handed down to them by the immediate followers of Christ were rapidly finding themselves to be in a minority position.

Mosheim, in his church history, relates that: “Christian churches had scarcely been organized when men rose up, who, not being contented with the simplicity and purity of that religion which the Apostles taught, attempted innovations, and fashioned religion according to their own liking.”

Paul, in his epistle to the Roman church, expressly warned them against boasting of their position and exalting themselves over the largely Jewish churches of the east (Rom. 11:18-21).

By the closing years of the second century, however, the Roman bishop Victor attempts to “excommunicate” the churches of Asia Minor for refusing to abandon practices handed down to them from the Apostles.

“A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover… the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the Church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him.

“’We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles… and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined on the bosom of the Lord… and Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr… these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.’”²⁸

Victor, not content to enforce the observance of Easter, with its many pagan features, upon his own local congregation, determined to press its observance on other churches far from Rome.

J.B. Lightfoot, the noted scholar and historian, describes the fundamental change in the office of the bishop of Rome that took place during the century that separated Clement from Victor. Although theologians of later centuries classified Clement as a Pope, Clement himself makes no mention in his writings of any such exalted position.

“The language and silence alike of Clement himself and of writers in his own and immediately succeeding ages are wholly irreconcilable with this extravagant estimate of his position.

“In Clement’s letter itself — the earliest document issuing from the Roman church after the apostolic times — no mention is made of the episcopacy so called.

“There is all the difference in the world between the attitude of Rome towards other churches at the close of the first century… and its attitude at the close of the second century, when Victor the bishop excommunicates the churches of Asia Minor for clinging to a usage in regard to the celebration of Easter which had been handed down to them from the Apostles.”²⁹

“Towards the latter end of the second century, most of the churches assumed a new form, the first simplicity disappeared; and insensibly, as the old disciples retired to their graves, their children, along with new converts, both Jews and Gentiles, came forward and new modeled the cause.”³⁰

The Roman view on Easter and Sunday observance, which was later to gain almost universal acceptance in the Christian professing world, was summed up by Justin Martyr around the middle of the second century: “But we meet together on Sunday, because it is the first day, in which God, having wrought the necessary changes in darkness and matter made the world; and on this day Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to the Apostles and Disciples, he taught the things which we now submit to your consideration.”³¹

Scholars recognise that the first Christians continued to observe the “Jewish” Sabbath. By Justin Martyr’s time, however, the large numbers of gentile converts coming into the church wrongly assumed that the Sabbath was a part of the ritualistic law of Moses. Genesis 2 shows that it was instituted long before the time of Moses.³²

Soon a new “gospel” began to be preached which extolled Christ and His virtues but denied His all- important message that He would return and set up the Kingdom of God on earth.

When the Roman or Latin form of Christianity became the state religion of the empire under Constantine, men saw less need for the return of Christ and sought to establish their own ecclesiastical empire, with Rome, not Jerusalem, as its headquarters.

The “little flock” which constituted the true Church of God were now classified as “heretics” by Constantine’s “Christian” empire and true to prophecy (Dan. 12:7, Rev. 12) were forced to flee into the wilderness or die as martyrs for their faith.

To those who continued to keep the Passover, in the form that it was handed down to them from the apostles and their successors, Constantine wrote the following: “Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings… Take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church….”³³

Not only the Passover but the Sabbath too was to be abolished by the state, at the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364.

Pryne records that “the seventh day Sabbath was… solemnized by Christ, the apostles and primitive Christians till the Laodicean Council did, in a manner, quite abolish the observance of it. The Council of Laodicea… first settled the observation of the Lord’s day.”³⁴

Those who wished to continue to keep the Commandments of God were now forced to flee for their lives into remote wilderness areas beyond the reach of their persecutors.

The new state religion, a bizarre blend of Christianity and paganism, now began to dominate Europe for over a thousand years, leaving the true Church in “a place prepared of God” (Rev. 12:6) — the remote mountains and valleys of central Europe.

FOOTNOTES — Chapter 6

1. The Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius.
2. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation.
3. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., book 3, chapter 39.
4. Herodotus¹ History, bk. 2, page 109.
5. Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1.
6. Antiquities Apostolicae, William Cave.
7. The Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, book 2, chap. 13.
8. The Clementine Homilies, chap. 11.
9. The Catacombs at Rome, B. Scott, page 84.
10. The Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius; book 2, chap. 3.
11. Hist., Eusebius, book 2.
12. MosheinVs Ecclesiastical History, page 121.
13. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, page 379.
14. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
15. The Two Babylons, page 103.
16. The Two Babylons, page 104.
17. Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24.
18. History of the Sabbath, Andrews.
19. Ibid.
20. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, book 5.
21. The Apostolic Fathers, J.B. Lightfoot, vol. i, page 74.
22. E. 11,25, 6, 7.
23. Our Neglected Heritage, G. Taylor, page 45, Covenant Books.
24. Haer. iii, 3.
25. The Apostolic Fathers, J.B. Lightfoot, vol. 1.
26. Cave’s Antiquities Apostolicas, page 138.
27. The Ancient British Church, T. Burges, page 43.
28. Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, book 5.
29. The Apostolic Fathers, J.B. Lightfoot, pages 68-70.
30. Robinson’s Ecclesiastical Researches, ch 6, page 5 1.
31. The Apology of Justin Martyr.
32. See the writings and opinions of Justin Martyr, by John, Bishop of Lincoln, 1836.
33. Eusebius’s Life of Constantine, book 3.
34. Dissertation on the Lord’s Day, 1633, page 163.